Mitsubishi Lancer EVO X FQ-400
Moderators: IMC, Club Staff
- zuihoujueding
- Oldtimer
- Posts: 1980
- jedwabna poszewka promocja
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Sydney
I like the style of X. Seems like the designers finally get their wages and came out aand evo which looks like no other evos.
Same with wrxs. I thought the looks just got mutured, not catered just to young adults anymore. I thought its still a good effort.
But something similar from both cars which has never change. All looks well and funky from the front and you'll feel like puking when you look at the rear.
Same with wrxs. I thought the looks just got mutured, not catered just to young adults anymore. I thought its still a good effort.
But something similar from both cars which has never change. All looks well and funky from the front and you'll feel like puking when you look at the rear.
- mr-charisma
- Oldtimer
- Posts: 4020
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:00 pm
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
I can't even pick out one feature of that car that I like..
Even though the 8th Gen Galants are a boring brick of a car, I still think the headlights /nose of the car looks awesome..
Even some Lancers have at least a few good qualities.. the only reason I can see for why people think Evo's look good is the same reason people think Holdens and Fords do .. they're bogans..
Even though the 8th Gen Galants are a boring brick of a car, I still think the headlights /nose of the car looks awesome..
Even some Lancers have at least a few good qualities.. the only reason I can see for why people think Evo's look good is the same reason people think Holdens and Fords do .. they're bogans..
- RichardB
- Grease Monkey
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: UK
- Contact:
The garage my car lives at only works on evo's and has several race spec 800+ bhp evo they have built, most of their customers are arround the 500 mark. There are better ways to get 400bhp where the power is a lot more usable. admitadly Im talking more experience of the VIII FQ400 than the X but Im guessing its going to be similar. I would still rather buy a standard one and give the extra £20k to a tuner like www.nr-autosport.com you will have a lot better car.Oliver89 wrote:Bro are you kidding me ???RichardB wrote:the turbo on the fq400 is too laggy,
Like what lag do you GET ? when a car hits 120-130kms/h within 3.8 seconds ??? Please explain
Read this article from the MLR in the UK who tested one against an FQ340
In in it states....
The low rpm acceleration tests were chosen to test acceleration from just 2500rpm. The FQ-340’s turbo response helped it start accelerating hard almost immediately even in the higher gears and it pulled strongly all the way to the red line in every gear we tested. It was a very different story with the FQ-400, as the lag from the FQ-400’s turbo meant that for every in-gear acceleration test the FQ-340 out accelerated the FQ-400 for almost 2/3rds of the acceleration run. It was only in the last third of each run that FQ-400 out accelerated the FQ-340.
The World's fastest FTO - sub 9's checkout www.mitsubishi-fto.net to see the latest time.
Sponsored by : NR Autosport, RB Performance, PPG Gearboxes, IPG Parts, S1 Chiropractic
Sponsored by : NR Autosport, RB Performance, PPG Gearboxes, IPG Parts, S1 Chiropractic
- koolio1234
- Oldtimer
- Posts: 2574
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:00 pm
- Location: Western Sydney
- Contact:
I would definitely have to agree with RichardB on the turbo lag of the fq400's. Jeremy clarkson himself tested the fq400 on top gear and found the lag was significant compared with an earlier model evo fq300.RichardB wrote:The garage my car lives at only works on evo's and has several race spec 800+ bhp evo they have built, most of their customers are arround the 500 mark. There are better ways to get 400bhp where the power is a lot more usable. admitadly Im talking more experience of the VIII FQ400 than the X but Im guessing its going to be similar. I would still rather buy a standard one and give the extra £20k to a tuner like www.nr-autosport.com you will have a lot better car.Oliver89 wrote:Bro are you kidding me ???RichardB wrote:the turbo on the fq400 is too laggy,
Like what lag do you GET ? when a car hits 120-130kms/h within 3.8 seconds ??? Please explain
Read this article from the MLR in the UK who tested one against an FQ340
In in it states....
The low rpm acceleration tests were chosen to test acceleration from just 2500rpm. The FQ-340’s turbo response helped it start accelerating hard almost immediately even in the higher gears and it pulled strongly all the way to the red line in every gear we tested. It was a very different story with the FQ-400, as the lag from the FQ-400’s turbo meant that for every in-gear acceleration test the FQ-340 out accelerated the FQ-400 for almost 2/3rds of the acceleration run. It was only in the last third of each run that FQ-400 out accelerated the FQ-340.
I believe that they later released an anti-lag system consisting of a re-designed intercooler and a few other changes. This reduced a lot of the fq400's lag issues and this system would have probably been passed onto the evo X, not 100% sure though.
[img]http://i710.photobucket.com/albums/ww104/thekrevolution/FTOFINALSIGNATUREcopy.png[/img]
- mr-charisma
- Oldtimer
- Posts: 4020
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:00 pm
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
\\\\koolio1234 wrote:I would definitely have to agree with RichardB on the turbo lag of the fq400's. Jeremy clarkson himself tested the fq400 on top gear and found the lag was significant compared with an earlier model evo fq300.RichardB wrote:The garage my car lives at only works on evo's and has several race spec 800+ bhp evo they have built, most of their customers are arround the 500 mark. There are better ways to get 400bhp where the power is a lot more usable. admitadly Im talking more experience of the VIII FQ400 than the X but Im guessing its going to be similar. I would still rather buy a standard one and give the extra £20k to a tuner like www.nr-autosport.com you will have a lot better car.Oliver89 wrote:Bro are you kidding me ???RichardB wrote:the turbo on the fq400 is too laggy,
Like what lag do you GET ? when a car hits 120-130kms/h within 3.8 seconds ??? Please explain
Read this article from the MLR in the UK who tested one against an FQ340
In in it states....
The low rpm acceleration tests were chosen to test acceleration from just 2500rpm. The FQ-340’s turbo response helped it start accelerating hard almost immediately even in the higher gears and it pulled strongly all the way to the red line in every gear we tested. It was a very different story with the FQ-400, as the lag from the FQ-400’s turbo meant that for every in-gear acceleration test the FQ-340 out accelerated the FQ-400 for almost 2/3rds of the acceleration run. It was only in the last third of each run that FQ-400 out accelerated the FQ-340.
I believe that they later released an anti-lag system consisting of a re-designed intercooler and a few other changes. This reduced a lot of the fq400's lag issues and this system would have probably been passed onto the evo X, not 100% sure though.
true,, dibn't hety test ir against a can// van or something>
???
f**k i'm pissed... goood times/// good times...
- Bennoz
- National President
- Posts: 23668
- Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:00 pm
- Location: Sydney
- Contact:
- maxleng
- Grease Monkey
- Posts: 213
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:00 pm
- Location: Melbourne
FOOLmr-charisma wrote:I can't even pick out one feature of that car that I like..
Even some Lancers have at least a few good qualities.. the only reason I can see for why people think Evo's look good is the same reason people think Holdens and Fords do .. they're bogans..
evo's look 10 times better than fto's imo.
in saying that im only talking about evo 7's and up, anything before was pretty ugly and remind me of riced up lancers with evo kits *vomit* (except evo 3s which are absolute sex)
- koolio1234
- Oldtimer
- Posts: 2574
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:00 pm
- Location: Western Sydney
- Contact:
- rock_it
- Oldtimer
- Posts: 6599
- Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:00 pm
- Location: The Shire .. NSW
- Contact:
- zuihoujueding
- Oldtimer
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Sydney
- Oliver89
- Oldtimer
- Posts: 1211
- Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:00 pm
- Location: [ OLL-13Z ] Sydney
- Contact:
Interesting man , cool well now i understand =)RichardB wrote:The garage my car lives at only works on evo's and has several race spec 800+ bhp evo they have built, most of their customers are arround the 500 mark. There are better ways to get 400bhp where the power is a lot more usable. admitadly Im talking more experience of the VIII FQ400 than the X but Im guessing its going to be similar. I would still rather buy a standard one and give the extra £20k to a tuner like www.nr-autosport.com you will have a lot better car.Oliver89 wrote:Bro are you kidding me ???RichardB wrote:the turbo on the fq400 is too laggy,
Like what lag do you GET ? when a car hits 120-130kms/h within 3.8 seconds ??? Please explain
Read this article from the MLR in the UK who tested one against an FQ340
In in it states....
The low rpm acceleration tests were chosen to test acceleration from just 2500rpm. The FQ-340’s turbo response helped it start accelerating hard almost immediately even in the higher gears and it pulled strongly all the way to the red line in every gear we tested. It was a very different story with the FQ-400, as the lag from the FQ-400’s turbo meant that for every in-gear acceleration test the FQ-340 out accelerated the FQ-400 for almost 2/3rds of the acceleration run. It was only in the last third of each run that FQ-400 out accelerated the FQ-340.
Thanks.
Proud Owner Of a White ( Version R ) Aero Series 1998 Mitsubishi FTO 24v 2L Mivec Engine. Fresh Import.
[img]http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/2568/fbsig.jpg[/img]
[img]http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/2568/fbsig.jpg[/img]
- Oliver89
- Oldtimer
- Posts: 1211
- Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:00 pm
- Location: [ OLL-13Z ] Sydney
- Contact:
There was a comment about this topic about Turbo lag made from another website & it stated the following..
The 2.0 L engine when naturally aspirated produces around 160 - 170 hp. With that turbo, it produces 403 hp. I wonder how much turbo lag this one actually has.
Nevertheless, I like the looks of this car.
The 2.0 L engine when naturally aspirated produces around 160 - 170 hp. With that turbo, it produces 403 hp. I wonder how much turbo lag this one actually has.
Nevertheless, I like the looks of this car.
Proud Owner Of a White ( Version R ) Aero Series 1998 Mitsubishi FTO 24v 2L Mivec Engine. Fresh Import.
[img]http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/2568/fbsig.jpg[/img]
[img]http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/2568/fbsig.jpg[/img]
- mr-charisma
- Oldtimer
- Posts: 4020
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:00 pm
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
Fool eh? Oh, it's on Oizo!!maxleng wrote:FOOLmr-charisma wrote:I can't even pick out one feature of that car that I like..
Even some Lancers have at least a few good qualities.. the only reason I can see for why people think Evo's look good is the same reason people think Holdens and Fords do .. they're bogans..
evo's look 10 times better than fto's imo.
in saying that im only talking about evo 7's and up, anything before was pretty ugly and remind me of riced up lancers with evo kits *vomit* (except evo 3s which are absolute sex)
hmm.. I don't even know what to say to that .. except to re-iterate the bogan comment
- mr-charisma
- Oldtimer
- Posts: 4020
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:00 pm
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
I beg to differ .. (granted, it is kitted up a bit)zuihoujueding wrote: I mean 4-door saloon is almost never as good looking as sports coupes.
And it has the power to back up the sophisticated looks.. There are better looking cars, but if I we're talking 4 door performance cars that don't look like milk crates, then this has to be one of the top choices..
- Oliver89
- Oldtimer
- Posts: 1211
- Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:00 pm
- Location: [ OLL-13Z ] Sydney
- Contact:
- mr-charisma
- Oldtimer
- Posts: 4020
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:00 pm
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
- zuihoujueding
- Oldtimer
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Sydney
- rock_it
- Oldtimer
- Posts: 6599
- Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:00 pm
- Location: The Shire .. NSW
- Contact:
That is the shiznit ...mr-charisma wrote:I beg to differ .. (granted, it is kitted up a bit)zuihoujueding wrote: I mean 4-door saloon is almost never as good looking as sports coupes.
And it has the power to back up the sophisticated looks.. There are better looking cars, but if I we're talking 4 door performance cars that don't look like milk crates, then this has to be one of the top choices..
I just had to add it ......
sublime19 wrote:Lol clearly you don't know me well enough, it was a joke
I talk a lot of sh*t, usually have to keep a roll of toilet paper handy in the car for my mouth
Astron_Boy wrote:Hold me Sooty, I need man comfort.
- Bennoz
- National President
- Posts: 23668
- Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:00 pm
- Location: Sydney
- Contact: